Online+Communities+of+Practice


 * Online Communities of Practice **


 * 1. Description of the tool **

Online communities of practice rely on computer mediated communication as opposed to conventional communities of practice (CofP) that primarily engage in face-to face interaction (Zhang & Watts, 2008). In a case study Zhang and Watts (2008) concluded that the characteristics of an community of practice as delineated by Wenger (1998) could be identified in an online community. They contended that a community qualifies as a community of practice when it supports identity development, both for individual members and the community and it features a coupling between practice and identity that allows the community to support not only information and knowledge sharing, but also knowledge creation (Zhang & Watts, 2008). Wenger (1998) presented that CofPs form naturally as a means to accomplish tasks, solve authentic problems and provide learning opportunities, and they exist within, between, and outside defined organizations. Given these criteria online tools such as discussion boards, learning management systems (Moodle or Blackboard) and social media tools such as twitter, facebook and youtube can be the framework within which online communities of practice can exist. Zhang and Watts (2008) investigated the distinction between online communities that feature information and knowledge sharing from online communities of practice which promote knowledge creation and demonstrated that not all interaction in and online environment can be considered a Communities of Practice as put forward by Wenger (1998).




 * 2. Benefits of the tool **
 * 1) Time and place independence: Online communities of practice offer affordances of time and place as compared to traditional face-to-face communities of practice; Vavasseur and MacGregor (2008) list convenience and economic advantages as benefits of time and place affordances.
 * 2) Membership: In general, online communities of practice have larger membership than traditional communities of practice because there are far less barriers to membership (Zhang & Watts, 2008). The larger member base brings a greater and more diverse collection of knowledge to the community and members are more likely to be exposed to new experiences and competencies (Zhang & Watts, 2008).
 * 3) Asynchronous Communication: Online discussion provides freedom from the constraint of time making “the concept of “discussion” less daunting or threatening, because students are not “put on the spot” and do not have to risk losing face. They can take the time to think carefully about what they want to say and to present their “best thinking” to the group” (Campbell 2007, p. 38). It has been suggested that some communicators prefer online communication to face to face interaction because they are able to focus on the message as other cues are filtered out (Zhang & Watts 2008). According to Johnson (2001) this “lack of traditional group norms caused by the physical presence (e.g., voice, stature, visible reactions, visible approval or disapproval, etc.)” makes asynchronous communication the ‘‘great equalizer’’ (p. 54).
 * 4) Scaffolding: The socio-cognitive scaffolding made possible by computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is a key feature that supports the constructivist instructional methodology of communities of practice (Arvaja et al., 2008). Arvaja et al. (2008) cite various studies that have demonstrated that through effective scaffolding CSCL environments can facilitate “higher-level cognitive achievements such as critical reasoning, explaining, generating own research questions, setting up and improving one’s own intuitive theories, and searching for scientific information” (p. 271). Scaffolds are designed to support collaboration in a CSCL environment and are “intended to structure, externalize, and coordinate students’ ideas in shared communication” (Arvaja et al., 2008, p. 273).
 * 5) Reviewability: Another key feature of CSCL that supports the constructivist instructional method of communities of practice is that participation history can be naturally “reified and stored” (Zhang & Watts 2008, p. 58). In other words, this kind of environment can function as a collective memory for a community of practice and store the history of the knowledge construction process, in a highly searchable and accessible format, for future revisions and use (Arvaja et al., 2008).


 * 3. Barriers and Restrictions of the tool **

Media richness theory considers face-to-face communication to be more apt for interactions in knowledge work than asynchronous text based communication (Zhang & Watts 2008). Hammond (1998) suggests that asynchronous discussion creates a lack of urgency in responding; messages are often short and superficial or so long that they cause readers to experience difficulty in processing them. The shortcomings presently identified in asynchronous courses are identified in Power’s work (2011, p21) as delayed feedback and lack of immediacy (Schullo et al., 2005), student isolation (Ludwig-Hardman & Dunlap, 2003), inadequate social context (Vonderwell, 2003), and a lack of learner community support (Garrison & Archer, 2007). Cultural norms influence the adoption of online communities of practice (Scheckler, 2010 p. 44); barriers include: lack of competence in using IT; lack of technological support; lack of access to networked computers; and lack of time and motivation to engage with adopting new practices with the aid of an online tool (Wilson & Christie, 2010; Schaller, 2010).

The concept of Communities of Practice have evolved out of the work of Etienne Wenger, in his book Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity (1998). Wegner described communities of practice as an evolving process for collaborative learning. Wenger (1998) contended that communities of practice existed informally long before the concept was coined. They form naturally as a means to accomplish tasks, solve authentic problems and provide learning opportunities, and they exist within, between, and outside defined organizations (Wenger, 1998). Learning in such a community of practice is known as ‘‘situated learning’’ (Wenger, 1998). Unlike traditional workplace training development, which shows little transfer between the classroom and the workplace, communities of practice take place at the time and place in which the actual tasks are performed (Johnson, 2001). Similarly communities of practice take place in the social context in which the practice will occur and foster a culture of learning (Zhang & Watts, 2008). Zhang and Watts (2008) added that this culture of learning requires a community goal of learning and produces a shared history of learning. A core concept of communities of practice is “community knowledge, in which the sum of this community knowledge is greater than sum of individual participant knowledge” (Johnson, 2001, p. 48). The collective knowledge of the community develops into “artifacts-documents, systems, tools” that represent “a nexus of perspectives” (Wegner, 1998, p. 108).
 * 4. Learning Theory Alignment **


 * 5. Practical Approaches/Best Practices for Knowledge Creation and Decision Making **

The research literature investigating the efficacy of technology to support the development of communities of practice provides insight that informs the design and facilitation of online communities of practice. Pachler, Daly and Turvey (2010) contended “being networked” in terms of adult learning requires careful facilitation, so that the participants benefit from a spectrum of collaborative arrangements, social and technological, which enable them to function as a community. Johnson (2001) referenced Palloff and Pratt (1999) who recommended that the community of practice be facilitated by a group leader who guides discussion and learning. Johnson (2001) maintained that the facilitator’s job is to act as a moderator, coach and mentor who directs the group to consider their learning goals and encourages the establishment of criteria for evaluating group success.Vavasseur and MacGregor (2008) suggested that the depth of asynchronous discussion can become poor without coaching and scaffolding and they reported richer discussion when the community workflow required individuals to read others’ responses. Scaffolding supports the organization of the discussion, contributions and shared work within a community of practice (Arvaja, Hakkinen, & Kankaanranta, 2008). Scaffolds are designed to support collaboration in an online environment and are “intended to structure, externalize, and coordinate students’ ideas in shared communication” (Arvaja, Hakkinen, & Kankaanranta, 2008, p. 273).


 * 6. Potential Future Use / Linkages **

In their book John Hagel, John Seely Brown and Lang Davison (2010) describe a phenomenon that sheds light on the potential power of online communities of practice; they contend that “As the number of people we can connect with expands, our ability to pull from that network the resources and people we require to address unexpected needs expands along with it.” The authors posit that “To succeed now, we have to continually refresh our stocks of knowledge by participating in relevant ‘flows’ of knowledge—interactions that create knowledge or transfer it across individuals.” (Hagel, Brown & Davsion, 2010). Scott and Scott’s (2010) model titled “Webs of Enhanced Practice” outlines the integration of online collaborative tools such as blogs, twitter, social networking tools, Skype, etc. into a learner’s more traditional professional network and serves as illustration of the potential of online tools to exponentially increase our interconnectedness and opportunity for knowledge creation.Zygouris-Coe and Swan (2010) captured the unique potential of online communties of practice for teacher professional development; they presented the potential to “bring[] teachers from across schools, states, and even nations together to learn, share successes and challenges, and co-construct and transfer learning. Information technologies can provide teachers with the professional development they need, when they need it and where they need it” (2010, p. 117).



Arvaja, M., Hakkinen, P., & Kankaanranta, M. (2008) Collaborative learning and computer-suppoted collaborative learning environments. In. Voogt, J. and Knezek, G. (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, (pp. 267-279) Springer. Campbell, N. (2007). Brining ESL students out of their shells: Enhancing participation thorugh online discussion. Business Communication Quarterly, 70(1), 37-43. Johnson, C. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice. Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 45-60. Hagel III, J. Brown, J.S. & Davison, L (2010). The power of pull; How small moves, smartly made, can set big things in motion. New York: Basic Books. Pachler, N., Daly, C. & Turvey, A. (2010). Teacher professional development practices: The case of the Haringey transformation teachers programme. In. Lindberg, J. & Olofsson, A. (Eds.), Online Learning and Teacher Professional Development: Methods for Improved Education Delivery, (77-95) Information Science Reference. Power, M. & Gould-Morven, A. (2011). Head of Gold, Feet of Clay: The Online Learning. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 2011, 12(2), 19 -39. Scott, D. E., & Scott, S. (2010). Innovations in the use of technology and teacher professional development. In J. O. Lindberg & A. D. Olofsson (Eds.), Online learning communities and teacher professional development: Methods for improved education delivery (pp. 169-190). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Scheckler, R. (2010). Case studies from the inquiry learning forum: Stories reaching beyond the edges. In. Lindberg, J. & Olofsson, A. (Eds.), Online Learning and Teacher Professional Development: Methods for Improved Education Delivery, (42-59) Information Science Reference.
 * References **

Vavasseur, C., & MacGregor, S. (2008). Extending content-focused professional development through online communities of practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,40(4), 517-536.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, A. & Christie, D. (2010). Realising the potential of virtual environments: A challenge for Scottish teachers. In. Lindberg, J. & Olofsson, A. (Eds.), Online Learning and Teacher Professional Development: Methods for Improved Education Delivery, (96-113) Information Science Reference. Zhang, W., Watts, S. (2008). Online communities as communities of practice: a case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 55-71. Zygouris-Coe, V. & Swan, B. (2010). Challenges of online teacher professional development communities: A statewide case study in the United States. In. Lindberg, J. & Olofsson, A. (Eds.), Online Learning and Teacher Professional Development: Methods for Improved Education Delivery, (114-133) Information Science Reference.